Allowed

Mazid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024BAIL/11022/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honorably Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. allowed bail to Mazid in a case under Sections 85 and 105 BNSS, wherein his wife allegedly died due to the applicant failing to take her to the recommended hospital. The court observed prima-facie evidence of the applicant's attempt to secure treatment.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding future conduct and court appearances.

Mazid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70544

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11022 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mazid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Masood Ali,Sanjeev Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Mazid) is languishing in jail since 25.08.2024 in Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections 85 & 105 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "BNSS"), Police Station-Banthara, District-Lucknow.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. This is a case where the wife of the applicant died on account of critical illness as she was having advanced pregnancy and some complication occurred to the wife of the applicant. The applicant was married on 31.05.2016.

¶10

5. As per the prosecution story, the applicant had not provided proper treatment to his wife when her condition was critical, whereas Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.3 of the bail application which is the medical papers showing that the applicant tried his level best to provide all possible treatments to his wife (since deceased). One ultrasound report dated 14.08.2024 has been enclosed showing the condition of fetus. Annexure No.4 of the bail application is the details of Ambulance being used by the applicant on 14.08.2024 and thereafter on 21.08.2024.

¶11

6. Though the prosecution story says that the wife of the applicant was advised to Lok Bandhu Hospital from C.H.C.

¶12

Sarojini Nagar but instead of taking his wife to Lok Bandhu Hospital the applicant got her admitted in one private hospital at Banthara. However, such hospital has not admitted his wife on account of her critical condition, then the applicant again taking her for any other hospital but she died on the way. Therefore, the prosecution is alleging that on account of gross negligence on the part of the applicant his wife died.

¶13

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is having one son, aged about 07 years and on account of he being in judicial custody there is no one in his family to lookafter him. The entire prosecution story is false and misconceived as he tried his level best to provide the proper treatment to his wife. He has stated that if the present applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order and shall co-operate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶14

8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has shown the Case Diary to refer the statement of one Asha Bahu (Indubala) who has recorded her statement to the effect that when the wife of the applicant was referred from C.H.C. Sarojininagar to Lok Bandhu Hospital, the applicant has not approached the Lok Bandhu Hospital but has approached one private hospital at Banthara and such hospital denied to admit her, therefore wife of the applicant died on the way.

¶15

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, though there might be some negligence on the part of the applicant that may be ascertained during the course of trial but, prima-facie, it is clear that the applicant has tried his level best to provide the treatment to his wife as and when it was required and the present applicant is having one son, aged about 07 years to whom no body is in the family to look-after, therefore, without entering into merits of the issue, I find it appropriate that the present applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

11. Let the applicant (Mazid) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as

¶19

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶24

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶25

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Suresh/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mazid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kant Agnihotri Vs Deputy Director Directorate Enforcement (P.C.Act) Lko.

Union of India Thru. Oic A.S.C. (Supply) Supp Depot Mathura Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Chandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rizwan Zaheer and Anr. vs State of U.P.

Hafiz Fuzail @ Mohd. Fuzail vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko